Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 - 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McDevitt (US 2010/0036498 A1).
Regarding claim 1, McDevitt discloses a method of implanting an intervertebral implant within an intervertebral space between a superior vertebral body and an inferior vertebral body (Abstract, Fig. 3), the method comprising:
placing a distal end of a shaft of the intervertebral implant (paragraph [0054], ref. 10, Fig. 1) adjacent the intervertebral space (paragraph [0065]);
engaging a concave undercut surface of a helical thread disposed about the shaft with the superior vertebral body and the inferior vertebral body (paragraph [0057] discloses that threads ref. 35 of the implant have an undercut profile in leading and trailing surfaces ref. 50, 55, see Fig. 2); and
rotating the intervertebral implant in a first rotational direction to insert the intervertebral implant within the intervertebral space (paragraph [0065]);
wherein, when the intervertebral implant is implanted within the intervertebral space, the concave undercut surface is shaped to resist at least one force transmitted between the superior vertebral body and the inferior vertebral body to stabilize the intervertebral space (paragraph [0015] discloses that the undercut threading holds the adjacent vertebral bodies in position when subjected to forces, thus resisting the forces to hold the position).
Regarding claim 2, McDevitt discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
preparing the intervertebral space to receive the intervertebral implant, wherein preparing the intervertebral space comprises at least one of:
removing at least a portion of an intervertebral disc intermediate the superior vertebral body and the inferior vertebral body (paragraph [0064] discloses partially or completely removing diseased or degenerative disc material);
distracting the superior vertebral body and the inferior vertebral body away from each other; and
compressing the superior vertebral body and the inferior vertebral body toward each other.
Regarding claim 3, McDevitt discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
forming at least one tapped bone thread in at least one of:
a superior vertebral endplate of the superior vertebral body; and
an inferior vertebral endplate of the inferior vertebral body (paragraph [0064] discloses forming, via tapping, dovetail thread seats ref. 90 into the vertebral bodies, see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, McDevitt discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
the intervertebral implant comprises a first intervertebral implant; and
the method further comprises implanting a second intervertebral implant within the intervertebral space adjacent the first intervertebral implant (Figs. 3 – 4 show two implants within the disc space).
Regarding claim 5, McDevitt discloses the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of a minor diameter of the shaft and a major diameter of the helical thread is constant along at least a portion of the shaft (Fig. 2 shows the dimeter to be constant along the viewed cross-section between the two tapered ends).
Regarding claim 6, McDevitt discloses the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of a minor diameter of the shaft and a major diameter of the helical thread varies along at least a portion of the shaft (Fig. 2 shows the minor diameter of the shaft different at the proximal and distal ends due to the tapered profile).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TESSA M MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8817. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8am - 1pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Robert can be reached at (571) 272-4719. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TESSA M MATTHEWS/Examiner, Art Unit 3773